In Between

The Multiple Viewpoint, and the “global village” triggered the questions I had when reading becoming sinners. A debate on what “native” or “uncontaminated” means, and why change, must be seen as an invasion, or in Mirzoeff’s language, diasporic. “In the nineteenth century, diaspora peoples were seen as a disruption to the natural economy of the natural economy of the nation state.” (2) “While we have become accustomed to thinking of the nation state as an “imaginary community” (Anderson 1992), it can nonetheless call on a range of geographical sites, monuments and symbols to create a powerful visual rhetoric of nationality.” (2) I wonder if  the feeling of belonging and rootedness that us information agers may feel to the so-called “global” village can somehow be authenticated. I’m curious to find out when change is seen positively and when change is seen as evil. Confirmed by the reading, I think we’re headed to an ultimate in-between zone of culture. Is that bas?